It’s just a toll booth on a bridge — but it symbolizes the challenges to Canadians of living next-door to an increasingly dysfunctional American political system.

The Ambassador Bridge over the Detroit River is the busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing. It’s been improved and modernized over the years, but shippers fear that the bridge’s capacity will soon be overwhelmed. Proposals to add a second span have gone nowhere. And anyway, a second span would be a poor solution: The bridge, built in 1929, is in the wrong place. It disgorges into Windsor city streets.

Shippers have long urged the construction of an entirely new border crossing that could connect U.S. Interstates 75 and 94 directly to Ontario’s Highway 401. On the eve of the 2008 financial crisis, those shippers finally got their way: The new crossing gained approval from the Michigan and Ontario highway departments.

The recession that began in 2007 temporarily depressed cross-border traffic. Yet it also added to the logic of a new crossing. With unemployment soaring in the Detroit-Windsor region, a big new bridge-highway project would deliver a welcome jolt to the local economy.

Plans for the new crossing failed, however, to reckon with two characteristics of the increasingly dysfunctional U.S. political system: Its extreme and intensifying tax aversion — and its vulnerability to manipulation by wealthy entrenched interest groups.

The existing Ambassador bridge is privately owned, and the main owner — Forbes 400 member Manuel Maroun — does not welcome competition. Even more than competition to his bridge, Maroun objects to competition for his duty-free gasoline stations. Those stations are exempt from taxes, yet sell gasoline for only marginally less than their tax-paying competition. Maroun has mounted a furious lobbying campaign against the second river crossing. He has gained some unexpected allies, including Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party group headed by Dick Armey. The Michigan chapter of AFP posted convincing-looking (but fake) eviction notices on homes near the proposed crossing route. The group acknowledged that the tactic “was meant to startle people.”

AFP refused to say whether Maroun was paying for the campaign, explaining that its donor lists were private.

Bridges cost money: In this case, almost $4-billion. The state of Michigan’s share of the cost would have been $550-million, with the balance to come from the province of Ontario and the U.S. and Canadian federal governments. That $550-million sounds like a lot of money, but put it in context: Almost $500-million in traffic crosses the river every day. Yet the Tea Party Republican majority in the Michigan legislature — perhaps influenced by their friends, allies, supporters and donors at Americans for Prosperity — has objected to the cost, and passed a law forbidding the state to spend any money to build the bridge.

On Friday, Michigan governor Rick Snyder (also a Republican) announced a last-minute reprieve: Michigan would borrow its $550-million contribution from the government of Canada, with the money to be repaid from a bridge toll. It’s a creative solution to an embarrassing problem. But it’s also an excruciating demonstration of the global consequences of the special-interest domination of the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Washington, D.C., to jointly announce with U.S. President Barack Obama the signing of the bi-lateral Beyond the Border agreement. Once fully enacted, it is hoped that this new agreement will streamline and modernize the movement of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. frontier. Though it has been criticized by some who fear that Canada is sacrificing too much sovereignty and putting the private information of its citizens at risk in the uncertain hope of maintaining access to the U.S. export market, such concerns are misplaced. Beyond the Border has the makings of a good deal for both nations, and Prime Minister Harper and President Obama should be lauded for pursuing it.

We limit our praise only because much of the actual nuts-and-bolts negotiating for the agreement remains to be done. Within the next three months, officials from both nations will begin work on implementing the plan in the hopes of easing the passage of the more than 300,000 people and $1-billion in trade that crosses the border every day. Our final verdict will be held until Beyond the Border is implemented, but thus far, we are encouraged by what we see.

Paperwork for the shipping of goods will be streamlined, requiring only one electronic document instead of five or more paper forms. Canada and the U.S. will jointly inspect goods from overseas intended to travel through both countries; once it has been approved abroad, it can pass into an American port and be shipped by train to Canada, for example, without further hurdles. Trusted-traveller programs such as the NEXUS card for frequent border crossers will be expanded, and investments made in upgrading the physical infrastructure of the border.

Beyond the Border is about more than just trade. In a meeting today with the National Post editorial board, David Jacobson, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, spoke of the importance of modernizing the border both to maintain security and to guarantee personal privacy. The ambassador noted that President Obama has made it a goal for the United States to double its international trade above 2010 levels by 2015, and that his country’s trading relationship with Canada is set to exceed that level of increase. But he also stressed that for every border guard not needed to screen pre-approved travellers and goods, that was one more person available to deal with everything else.

“The border is the worst place to have to make these kinds of decisions,” the ambassador said. “Every extra moment of delay creates bottlenecks. We want to move as much of this away from the border as possible, because more efficiency means more security.”

The ambassador was also clear that critics of the deal have overblown concerns about Canadian sovereignty and privacy. Most of the criticism has focused on streamlined sharing of airline passenger data for Canadian aircraft travelling to, or flying over, the United States, or on the fact that under the agreement, Canadian and American officials will exchange information on who is entering and exiting the respective countries. The air traveller information is already available to American officials, the ambassador was clear, and will never include flights that are not destined for or overflying the United States.

And tracking those exiting each country is a natural evolution of the current system of checking the passports or entry documents of those entering them. No extra data will be collected at the border, just what is already contained within a passport and provided upon entry. Being able to know who has left Canada or the United States, and not just who has entered it, will enable officials to monitor those who might be travelling on expired visas or claiming false residency status. Canada has long struggled to track failed refugees claimants or those in the country on lapsed visas. This could be one way of rectifying that unacceptable blind spot in our domestic security.

There are those in Canada who already feel we share too much information with the United States, and therefore won’t be impressed that Beyond the Border will be limited to sharing the same data more efficiently. But most Canadians understand the importance of co-operating with our neighbours to ensure the border remains efficient, effective and secure.

Until and unless Canada and the United States are both willing to sacrifice some measure of sovereignty to adopt a European Union-style open border — something ambassador Jacobson quite rightly noted is on the agenda in neither country — improving the border we have is the only way to keep our trade and security relationship with the United States running smoothly. Beyond the Border is a good first step in that direction.

National Post

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-editorial-board-u-s-canadian-border-plan-is-a-good-deal/feed0stdDC_Jacobsen01.jpgJohn Ivison: Government stays quiet about new security and trade deal with the U.S.http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-government-stays-quiet-about-new-security-and-trade-deal-with-the-u-s
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-government-stays-quiet-about-new-security-and-trade-deal-with-the-u-s#commentsMon, 13 Dec 2010 21:09:04 +0000http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/?p=21481

Sam Leung/Postmedia NewsCanadians don't want to be hassled when crossing the border.

There have been some suggestions that Lawrence Cannon may be moved from his job as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the upcoming Cabinet shuffle, following the debacle over Canada’s failed bid for a UN Security seat.

There are whispers that Peter Kent, currently Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, is due for a promotion and may unseat his boss.

Yet, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Ottawa Monday, Mr. Cannon again displayed his talents as the consummate Foreign Minister — that is, someone with an ability to talk at length without saying anything that is harmful, indiscreet or even interesting.

He may not be popular with his bureaucrats, who resent any interference by the elected government of the day in creating foreign policy, which they regard as their exclusive province. But Mr. Cannon’s response to questions about the imminent perimeter security announcement was an outstanding example of political balderdash.

In answer to a direct question about the timing of a perimeter security announcement between the U.S. and Canadian governments, the foreign minister not only beat around the bush, he blew hot and cold and ended up mincing his words. “The challenge, of course, is the following — on the one hand to be able to maintain trade and commercial relations with our largest trading partner in the world and see it progress over the course of the next few months, indeed even the next several years,” etc., etc. The Chair’s Statement from the North American Foreign Ministers Meeting contains much, much more of the same.

Ms. Clinton took up the challenge and waffled like a good ‘un, reminiscing about her time as Senator from New York, with its “long and friendly” border with Canada.

The upshot was that neither gave any hint of what might be in the agreement, which as the National Postrevealed last Wednesday, is set to be unveiled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama in Washington next month.

The obfuscation will at least give the Conservative government time to figure out how to sell any deal to Canadians, who are increasingly fed up at being humiliated by heavy-handed U.S. border guards on the way south, and nickel and dimed by their Canadian equivalents when they exceed their personal exemption by $100. Who out there hasn’t had to hand over $14 in duty after waiting 30 minutes while four border service agents pore over a sheaf of receipts?

The U.S. has been quite clear that it wants to see concentric rings of security and it seems extremely unlikely it is going to dismantle the thick security apparatus at the Canadian border, which now includes Predator drones, Blackhawk helicopters and an expensive array of electronic detection devises.

Even the avuncular Mr. Cannon won’t be able to convince Canadians this is a good deal, unless they see some real evidence that it is getting more simple to enter the U.S. as a result.

A billion dollars worth of glorious, cranium-stretching technology, including infrared night-time cameras, concealed motion-detecting devices and 24-hour computer-enhanced surveillance systems, all in addition to a 6,200-kilometre fence stretching from Texas to California, or Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S. by slipping surreptitiously over the border and trudging across the desert by night.

Technology, right? Technology can do anything, which we know because it’s done such a good job of winning that war in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately not. After spending about a third of the $2.5 billion budget, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is giving up on the attempt to seal its southern border by turning it into a virtual version of the Berlin wall. According to the L.A. Times:

The virtual fence was intended to link advanced monitoring technologies to command centers for Border Patrol to identify and thwart human trafficking and drug smuggling. But from the beginning, the program has been plagued by missed deadlines and the limitations of existing electronics in rugged, unpredictable wilderness where high winds and a tumbleweed can be enough to trigger an alarm.

Homeland Security officials decided on Sept. 21 not to invoke the department’s option with Boeing, the principle contractor on the project, and instead extended the deal only to mid-November, Boeing officials confirmed this week. Boeing has charged the department more than $850 million since the project began in 2006.

The project, known as SBInet, was supposed to catch illegal Mexican immigrants by erecting 1,800 towers along the border and sticking cameras on top, backed by motion detectors to spot illegal vehicles and the soft pit-a-pat of feet crossing sand. Homeland Security officials promised it would give them “the best possible solution to detect, identify, classify, respond to and resolve illegal entry attempts at our land borders with Mexico and Canada.”

Note that reference to Canada. The plan was to extend it to the northern border as well, since American politicians insist on believing the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. One enthusiastic description of the plan described it like this:

The cameras, equipped with video analytics, will be able to detect suspicious movements near the border thanks to specially created algorithms inside the camera which analyze footage for specified data. The addition of video analytics to border patrol operations presents many interesting and beneficial security advantages.

Since the cameras would be detecting all the migrants (using “video analytics” no less), border agents would be freed to do other stuff, like chasing drug lords. Now they’ll have to do their own analytics, like driving up and down looking for holes in the fence. Oh yeah — they’re keeping the fence, even though it doesn’t work that well either. Doesn’t take much technology to put up fence. Or to cut through one, apparently.